Support NeoGAF

[Buggy Loop]

I'm not sure what you think happens when you go outside and ride or when it's not plugged in to a wall but here you go running balanced FSR too just for you:



540p upscaled to 1080p is DLSS performance as well. not balanced or quality.
You could have had better insight if DF actually did a good comparison instead of docked vs a damn Series S for that "miracle port" nonsense narrative.

DF did the same for Steam deck and series S comparisons, where were you?

With frame gen again with blatant frame pacing issues and hitches, on top of looking like shit thanks to FSR, it's clear as day image quality wise it's not even in the same leagues. Frame gen at those base ~20-30 FPS feels like shit and full of artifacts. It makes for youtube content where peoples drool over the framerates but feel like shit to play. I can't believe you're even considering this for a minute, considering your history

What are you even doing here with this PC handheld narrative anyway? You aren't on PC handhelds.

 

[StereoVsn]

Nvidia is a cut above. Too bad they wont make a Windows or SteamOS based handheld using their best SOC.

There are rumors of Nvidia getting into laptop APU market. Maybe if that happens they would make a scaled down version.

 

[Three]

With frame gen again with blatant frame pacing issues and hitches, on top of looking like shit thanks to FSR, it's clear as day image quality wise it's not even in the same leagues. Frame gen at those base ~20-30 FPS feels like shit and full of artifacts. It makes for youtube content where peoples drool over the framerates but feel like shit to play. I can't believe you're even considering this for a minute, considering your history

What are you even doing here with this PC handheld narrative anyway? You aren't on PC handhelds.

Wtf has suggesting that Black myth wukong doesn't run well on a steamdeck either (vs a PS5) got to do with the switch 2 port vs similar PC handheld performance not being great either? I'm not even suggesting Outlaws runs great on other handhelds but it runs a lot better than 30fps with framegen like some are suggesting. You can see the framerate counter yourself outside and riding. The switch 2 has shit framerate hitches too. Look at the video I posted with all the switch 2 pop-in, you can see the stuttering while riding a little into the video:

 

[Deerock71]

The witcher 3 ran at 30fps on a PS4 and PS4 Pro. The most powerful console of the time. Witcher 3 ran at 30fps on a Switch too. By those metrics it's a lot more impressive and they're being a lot more forgiving today vs it. they're out here comparing and praising a 30fps 540p buggy game to the weakest crap console today because the most powerful consoles today run this at 60fps with much better res/image quality and settings which they don't compare to for some reason. Instead they concentrate on the weakest Series S and docked, why? Last gen we didn't have a weak ass Series S to compare to unless the Wii U got a port of the same game.

What res and settings are you talking about for 30fps on an Ally with framegen? It runs a lot better than that. Especially on the equivalent 540p at "performance" level upscaling. The ally and Legion Go are not different in specs anyway so what do you mean by "even on". The Ally is weaker. Did you mean the Ally X? Looking at the Ally X framegen off and FSR Quality mode at 1080p:



You don't need framegen to hit 30fps at all. As you can see with framegen you hit 60fps.


I'm not sure what you think happens when you go outside and ride or when it's not plugged in to a wall but here you go running balanced FSR too just for you:



540p upscaled to 1080p is DLSS performance as well. not balanced or quality.
You could have had better insight if DF actually did a good comparison instead of docked vs a damn Series S for that "miracle port" nonsense narrative.

Go ahead and continue comparing niche handheld $1000 PCs and PS5 Pros and Series X to the Switch 2. The fact of the matter is Switch 2 takes on all comers, and in many ways is incomparable. This is why you see rumors about Sony and Microsoft handhelds; Nintendo has boxed them into a standing 8 count.

 

[OverHeat]

Go ahead and continue comparing niche handheld $1000 PCs and PS5 Pros and Series X to the Switch 2. The fact of the matter is Switch 2 takes on all comers, and in many ways is incomparable. This is why you see rumors about Sony and Microsoft handhelds; Nintendo has boxed them into a standing 8 count.

Oh boy!

 

[Deerock71]

Oh boy!

I mean...Nintendo's like a Dyson vacuum cleaner sucking up the gaming $$$ between now and EASILY Christmas, and Sony's handheld is at best two years out. When the Ocarina of Time remake drops next year, the Switch 2 will be ENTRENCHED.

 

[Deerock71]

now 30 fps is extraordinary!!!

It's a next gen game on a handheld at a near LOCKED 30fps. Remember when this game was going to wreck the Switch 2, lo those many seven days ago?

 

[kevboard]

It's a next gen game

technically speaking it is a current gen game running on a next gen handheld.

 

[Buggy Loop]

Wtf has suggesting that Black myth wukong doesn't run well on a steamdeck either (vs a PS5) got to do with the switch 2 port vs similar PC handheld performance not being great either? I'm not even suggesting Outlaws runs great on other handhelds but it runs a lot better than 30fps with framegen like some are suggesting. You can see the framerate counter yourself outside and riding. The switch 2 has shit framerate hitches too. Look at the video I posted with all the switch 2 pop-in, you can see the stuttering while riding a little into the video:

Because here you are cheer leading framegen in a 20-30 fps baseline which is total dogshit. You have a long fucking history of coming into frame gen threads and saying the latency is shit when we're talking upper tiers 60→120 fps, but 20-30 fps baseline is NOT when you enable framegen.

Combined with one of the worst upscaler for low resolution on the market, it looks like oil painting ffs.

The framerate counter on legion go means fuck all, I know it plays badly. I see the massive dips and framegen artifacts. Yes locked 30 fps would be better. Where is Akiva on that thing? Or Oliver saying that he thinks it's bugged out in that particular section? Must mean that its at odds with the rest of all the streaming in the game.

 

[Insane Metal]

Portable mode looks like dogshit imo

 

[OverHeat]

Portable mode looks like dogshit imo

That's why my switch 2 is docked all the time lol

 

[kevboard]

what I am wondering, can you enable the software RT on PC manually, or does the game just do it automatically depending on your hardware? because the game does have a software RT fallback on PC, which in theory should run worse than using the hardware RT version on hardware that has RT acceleration.

basically, what I am wondering is if these PC handheld tests are well informed and use actually proper settings.
or maybe the software RT is actually paired back enough to enable decent performance on handhelds.

to me, even for AMD standards, the performance on the Legion Go and Ally X seem a bit low.

 

[FireFly]

The witcher 3 ran at 30fps on a PS4 and PS4 Pro. The most powerful console of the time. Witcher 3 ran at 30fps on a Switch too. By those metrics it's a lot more impressive and they're being a lot more forgiving today vs it. they're out here comparing and praising a 30fps 540p buggy game to the weakest crap console today because the most powerful consoles today run this at 60fps with much better res/image quality and settings which they don't compare to for some reason. Instead they concentrate on the weakest Series S and docked, why? Last gen we didn't have a weak ass Series S to compare to unless the Wii U got a port of the same game.

So, when you said "It's the usual "miracle port" narrative we saw even with Witcher on the switch when in reality its the worst place to play the game", what you actually meant was their praise was totally justified in this instance? (Because in spite of the deficiencies of the port, CDPR had only limited scope to cut resolution and no scope to cut framerate).

If that's really your argument then the PS5 version running at 720-1080p 60 FPS, and the Switch 2 running at 720p (internal) at half the framerate, but with a ~5X performance deficit to make up, seems pretty impressive to me. But this is besides the point that the post I was responding to was arguing that we can't trust DF because of their past takes, and this line of argument is defending their past takes!

What res and settings are you talking about for 30fps on an Ally with framegen? It runs a lot better than that. Especially on the equivalent 540p at "performance" level upscaling. The ally and Legion Go are not different in specs anyway so what do you mean by "even on". The Ally is weaker. Did you mean the Ally X? Looking at the Ally X framegen off and FSR Quality mode at 1080p

I said "even on", because the closest priced competitor is the Steam Deck, not the Ally. You had not even mentioned the Legion Go in this thread when I made my reply.

You don't need framegen to hit 30fps at all. As you can see with framegen you hit 60fps.


I'm not sure what you think happens when you go outside and ride or when it's not plugged in to a wall but here you go running balanced FSR too just for you:

I meant at an acceptable internal resolution, i.e above the 540p you were objecting to.

So the first video does use an internal resolution of 720p, upscaled to 1080p. That's what we were looking for! Unfortunately, as you can see if you watch the video, the frame rates are frequently below 30 FPS and the presenter describes it as unplayable. At a 900p output (600p internal) framerates still frequently drop below 30. At a 720p output and a 480p input framerates finally stay above 30, but only for this beginning area being tested. As we see in the second video, in the outdoor sections, there are frame drops even for lower internal resolutions.

In this second video, they target an output resolution of 800p. Correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe that with XeSS 1.3 Intel now uses a 50% axis scale for the Balanced mode, so that would equate to a 400p resolution. I also see framerates there dropping into the mid to low 20s during traversal. And finally, for the FSR Ultra performance benchmarks, you're talking about running at 266p.

Can you explain how a 400p or 266p internal resolution delivers a better experience than a 540p one?

 

[JusticeForAll]

I bought this game in a sale on ps5 pro and I did not regret it one bit when I played it a couple of months ago, the final DLC was out and all issues the were in the game have been fixed with it.

I can believe it was a bit on the crappy side when it just came out, but when I played it, it was good. Of course, I'm not one to 100 percent stuff anymore, I really couldn't care less, but when you stick to the story and the important side missions in this one, it's pretty great and entertaining. Underrated even, I'd say. And I tend to hate open world slob. Just my opinion, but take it for what it is.

If you like Star Wars, play it. Is better than most other Star Wars-content.

 

[Three]

Because here you are cheer leading framegen in a 20-30 fps baseline which is total dogshit. You have a long fucking history of coming into frame gen threads and saying the latency is shit when we're talking upper tiers 60→120 fps, but 20-30 fps baseline is NOT when you enable framegen.

Nobody is cheerleading framegen. The baseline framerate is greater than the switch 2 though.

Combined with one of the worst upscaler for low resolution on the market, it looks like oil painting ffs.

The framerate counter on legion go means fuck all, I know it plays badly. I see the massive dips and framegen artifacts.

yet you don't see the shitty artifacts from upscaling 540p to 1080p in the swaying grass? At least you can change to balanced or higher and maintain 30fps like I showed.

Yes locked 30 fps would be better. Where is Akiva on that thing? Or Oliver saying that he thinks it's bugged out in that particular section? Must mean that its at odds with the rest of all the streaming in the game.

I don't know why they don't mention it (almost like that's what I'm saying regarding DF and their praise for this game/port) but you can clearly see it can you not?

 

[Darko]

Portable mode looks like dogshit imo

I've only played in portable.. looks okay to me

 

[Buggy Loop]

Nobody is cheerleading framegen. The baseline framerate is greater than the switch 2 though.

20-30 fps with worse traversal is not better

yet you don't see the shitty artifacts from upscaling 540p to 1080p in the swaying grass? At least you can change to balanced or higher and maintain 30fps like I showed.

Doesn't matter if its balanced or quality. DLSS is leaps and bounds above FSR for low resolution. This is known. Switch 2's solution which peoples call it DLSS "light" is better than PC DLSS 3 CNN for comparable resolutions.

I don't know why they don't mention it (almost like that's what I'm saying regarding DF and their praise for this game/port) but you can clearly see it can you not?

I can see the pop in, just like he spotted other glitches and weirdness in other parts of the game too. He thinks its an issue that can more than likely patched, as in its an odd ball.

 

[RoboFu]

hmm havnt watched the video but all I see its videos of pc handhelds so I am guessing the switch 2 came out great in this DF vid?

 

[Karim]

B-b-b-b-buuutttt they said it ran POORLY!?!?

The amount of threads on this forum outright bashing the Switch 2 with hot take clickbait junk articles and videos needs to stop. Anyone posting that junk should get a temporary ban.

And yes I get it in The foundry video he does say that it didn't run super great a few weeks ago. But there were hundreds of games at that event and the only threads opened about any games performance was about Switch 2.

Why on Earth someone would want a console to fail is beyond my comprehension.

Gamers win and lose together. A port that does poorly on the Switch 2 will effect what that studio can then do on your other favorite system.

Grow up.

 

[Three]

8So, when you said "It's the usual "miracle port" narrative we saw even with Witcher on the switch when in reality its the worst place to play the game", what you actually meant was their praise was totally justified in this instance? (Because in spite of the deficiencies of the port, CDPR had only limited scope to cut resolution and no scope to cut framerate).

I wasn't saying their praise was justified at all because that still was the worst place to play witcher 3 but I was just saying your idea that they are less forgiving now is just plain not true because they weren't, because it was running at the same framerate as the most powerful console of the time vs this Star wars port now which has cutbacks in everything and runs at half the framerate. This is relative to Starwars though not in general and their "miracle port narrative" being used for both while being a poor place to play the game, especially when playing at home and doing a docked comparison. Their portables comparison they didn't actually do which is again poor form doing a comparison to a weak Series S console that hardly anyone is even buying anymore vs their Witcher comparison which was against a PS4 the most powerful console for the game vs a switch 1.

If that's really your argument then the PS5 version running at 720-1080p 60 FPS, and the Switch 2 running at 720p (internal) at half the framerate, but with a ~5X performance deficit to make up, seems pretty impressive to me. But this is besides the point that the post I was responding to was arguing that we can't trust DF because of their past takes, and this line of argument is defending their past takes!

I'm not defending their past takes at all. read above regarding why I mentioned their witcher coverage being less forgiving in comparison to now. Its relative to their more forgiving coverage now and related to what you said. With Star wars you get half the framerate, the 720p res is minimum res which it barely hits at twice the framerate whereas on switch its the max you will ever get, docked, 540p portable. Plus you get all the other cutbacks like more coarse noisy RT, GI, draw distance, lower LOD, bad textures
and pop-in bugs and crashes.

I meant at an acceptable internal resolution, i.e above the 540p you were objecting to.

So the first video does use an internal resolution of 720p, upscaled to 1080p. That's what we were looking for! Unfortunately, as you can see if you watch the video, the frame rates are frequently below 30 FPS and the presenter describes it as unplayable.

the switch 2 version frequently drops below 30fps too in the same ballpark figure running at 540p instead.

At a 900p output (600p internal) framerates still frequently drop below 30. At a 720p output and a 480p input framerates finally stay above 30, but only for this beginning area being tested. As we see in the second video, in the outdoor sections, there are frame drops even for lower internal resolutions.

In this second video, they target an output resolution of 800p. Correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe that with XeSS 1.3 Intel now uses a 50% axis scale for the Balanced mode, so that would equate to a 400p resolution. I also see framerates there dropping into the mid to low 20s during traversal. And finally, for the FSR Ultra performance benchmarks, you're talking about running at 266p.

Can you explain how a 400p or 266p internal resolution delivers a better experience than a 540p one?

I'm not sure about XeSS nor do I see its relevance. Look at the FSR3 with framegen sections. It's running way above 30fps with framegen in Ultra performance it's running at 60 to 70fps. You said it runs at 30fps with framegen.

I can see the pop in, just like he spotted other glitches and weirdness in other parts of the game too. He thinks its an issue that can more than likely patched, as in its an odd ball.

I'm referring to the framerate hitch that you can very clearly see but they don't mention. The popin issues are very obvious.

 

[pulicat]

The witcher 3 ran at 30fps on a PS4 and PS4 Pro. The most powerful console of the time. Witcher 3 ran at 30fps on a Switch too. By those metrics it's a lot more impressive and they're being a lot more forgiving today vs it. they're out here comparing and praising a 30fps 540p buggy game to the weakest crap console today because the most powerful consoles today run this at 60fps with much better res/image quality and settings which they don't compare to for some reason. Instead they concentrate on the weakest Series S and docked, why? Last gen we didn't have a weak ass Series S to compare to unless the Wii U got a port of the same game.

What res and settings are you talking about for 30fps on an Ally with framegen? It runs a lot better than that. Especially on the equivalent 540p at "performance" level upscaling. The ally and Legion Go are not different in specs anyway so what do you mean by "even on". The Ally is weaker. Did you mean the Ally X? Looking at the Ally X framegen off and FSR Quality mode at 1080p:



You don't need framegen to hit 30fps at all. As you can see with framegen you hit 60fps.


I'm not sure what you think happens when you go outside and ride or when it's not plugged in to a wall but here you go running balanced FSR too just for you:



540p upscaled to 1080p is DLSS performance as well. not balanced or quality.
You could have had better insight if DF actually did a good comparison instead of docked vs a damn Series S for that "miracle port" nonsense narrative.

The game literally looks like garbage with FSR 3 and Framegen on Legion Go, and somehow you think that's better than the Switch 2 handheld mode.
These are from the same uploader.

 

[Solarstrike]

Now you're playing with $500+ power

 

[Rocinante618]

Massive's Snowdrop is a fantastic engine.

Division 1& 2, Avatar and Star Wars all look incredibly beautiful and scale with the hardware.

Avatar and Division 2 have industry leading object density. Avatar has industry leading foliage. All of this with some of the best frame pacing out there. Stable and performant.

It's unfortunate that they are owned by Ubisoft and their last two games, Avatar and Star Wars didn't hit the profits Ubi hoped.

I'm still optimistic and I'll get Division 3, Day 1.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Too bad Sony is married to AMD and will never use Nvidia on PlayStation

A portable delivering better performance than the Series S is something for sure

 

[Hector Hall]

540p resolution handheld, 720p docked

 

[FireFly]

I wasn't saying their praise was justified at all because that still was the worst place to play witcher 3 but I was just saying your idea that they are less forgiving now is just plain not true because they weren't, because it was running at the same framerate as the most powerful console of the time vs this Star wars port now which has cutbacks in everything and runs at half the framerate. This is relative to Starwars though not in general and their "miracle port narrative" being used for both while being a poor place to play the game, especially when playing at home and doing a docked comparison. Their portables comparison they didn't actually do which is again poor form doing a comparison to a weak Series S console that hardly anyone is even buying anymore vs their Witcher comparison which was against a PS4 the most powerful console for the game vs a switch 1.

They didn't actually recommend the docked version of The Witcher on the Switch, and I'm not aware of any other portable platform to play the game at the time. So their sin in this case is to think the Witcher 3 port was impressive and detail but not "criticise" the extensive sacrifices required to get the game to run on the platform. It's still not clear to me if your position is that this is totally fine, because getting a 30 FPS version to run at all was impressive. Or if it totally was impressive, but they shouldn't be allowed to say that because you just can't express anything positive about a version that is the worst way to play the game!

In any case I was talking about them being less forgiving of concrete problems like poor framerates, IQ or visual cutbacks. Now you're introducing a different idea that they're being overly forgiving of titles that fail to show impressive graphics or performance given the capability of the platform. So that if we look at how the PS5 version of Outlaws performs, we just shouldn't be impressed about how it can run on the Switch 2 at 720p 30 FPS. And I think if the PS5 version ran at 4K60, that would be a solid point. As it is though the PS5's performance mode runs at 720-1080p. Now the ironic thing about your argument is that if the S didn't exist, you would have a stronger point. You could say that they had to halve the resolution and framerate and still make visual compromises. But here the S exists and already halved the framerate and moved to performance mode settings, and despite this still suffers from performance issues which DF criticised in the original Outlaws article!

There is some room to drop resolution on the Switch 2, but the most GPU demanding parts are precisely those that we would expect to come close to 720p! So in the worst case, we have 720p on the Series S at 30 FPS, and now we're porting that to a system with half the GPU power. Do you think it's normal for a system with half the GPU power to look comparable, at a similar resolution, but with better performance? Or to use another data point, we already know that a 720p resolution is not viable on PC portables running at low settings and at higher power levels to the Switch 2 in docked mode. The video you provided proved this. So why would we expect the Switch 2 to be able to do this?

If you look at the initial preview thread with the predicted catastrophic performance, there was no sense of collective surprise. Outlaws is unplayable on the Deck, so of course it was going to be unplayable on the Switch 2, which has a similar power level (at least in portable mode), as we can see in Cyberpunk...

the switch 2 version frequently drops below 30fps too in the same ballpark figure running at 540p instead.

DF and other outlets report that there are momentary drops below 30 FPS, but performance does not stay below 30 FPS for extended periods. While, the XeSS Balanced clip shows the game running at 400p internally, and it's actually below 30 FPS for most of the run. It's below 30 FPS even in the non-traversal sections.

I'm not sure about XeSS nor do I see its relevance. Look at the FSR3 with framegen sections. It's running way above 30fps with framegen in Ultra performance it's running at 60 to 70fps. You said it runs at 30fps with framegen.

I already clarified that my claim is that the game requires frame gen to run at an internal resolution above 540p at 30 FPS. Your response to this is to highlight a benchmark section running at 266p! So 540p looks really bad but let's play in a mode with a quarter of the pixels!

You don't seem to be understanding that the internal resolution of a "Balanced" or "Performance" mode depends on the output resolution. All of the supposedly playable benchmark runs you've highlighted run at a lower than 540p internal resolution, because the corresponding output resolution is less than 1080p. And even ignoring the lower internal resolution, the Switch 2 version is still going to look better because it's upscaling to 1080p (1440p docked). So you're highlighting graphical modes that require lower output and input resolutions and somehow holding them as "superior".

 

[Forth]

This is a fantastic version for anyone that loves the hybrid Switch series but if you're a TV only console gamer then stick with the PS5 version instead.
What Nintendo are accomplishing is marvellous but this and 30fps elden ring is just something I can't buy into.

 

[Esppiral]

Steam deck is weak as fuck compared to this I'm impressed

To be fair the Steam Deck is running the PC version and the Switch 2 version has reduced assets and stuff on screen so no a 1:1 comparison...

 

[Nvzman]

Are we seriously circle jerking about a game that runs at 1080p @ 30fps in 2025?

It is a shame when this low expectation is ok with a modern console that is suppose to run games for at least the next 5+ years. Nintendo will have their gems eventually but right now it's slim pickings on the Switch 2 while the third parties games are the weakest if you own more than one modern platform. If you value portability above all else, I can see that but cmon man. I was expecting at least modern games to run at 1080p 60fps docked but it's not happening. The way Nintendo fans are slobbering all over this game you would think it was a game of the year contender.

In My opinion the Switch Oled is still the best variation of the Switch family (switch 2 included). But really bragging about a game running at 1080p 30 fps in 2025? Cmon man!

You posted all those words to bitch about something you're incorrect about to begin with.

It's reconstructed 1440p 30fps with hardware ray tracing on a 9-20w handheld APU, yes that's incredibly impressive, please shut the fuck up with this drivel.

 

[Radical_3d]

Too bad not having Giga making overstatements about this. It was also refreshing having someone with less respect for English than I do.

 

[Certinty]

Played a few hours handheld and it's great both visually and performance wise.

Biggest issue is the popin in the open world, expected it to be a bit better.

 

[thatJohann]

Wild that even when using the 21:9 cinematic ultra-wide mode, the Switch 2 renders this amount of sharp detail without incurring in that Vaseline blur that Switch 1 games used to have. Wizardry.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Wild that even when using the 21:9 cinematic ultra wide mode, the Switch 2 looks as good as it does and runs at a solid 30fps. Wizardry.

21:9 on a 16:9 screen renders fewer pixels (compared to native resolution) so it always runs better.

 

[thatJohann]

21:9 on a 16:9 screen renders fewer pixels (compared to native resolution) so it always runs better.

True, I will rephrase. The part that impresses me the most is the amount of detail being rendered at once without incurring in that Vaseline blur that Switch 1 games used to have.

 

[Karim]

Too bad Sony is married to AMD and will never use Nvidia on PlayStation

A portable delivering better performance than the Series S is something for sure

I don't know why some of you persist with this nvidia hardware black magic argument. I don't see anything of miracolous in terms of perfomance in this game. I mean they drastically reduced the polycount, the cutbacks some reflections with raytracing alternate to cubemaps they rewritten a lot of the engine features just for the switch 2. Ubisoft did an exceptional work for sure but not because the nvidia hardware just thanks to good optimization. Furthermore at lower specs nvidia hardware is not to far away to AMD. It's with the higher specs where show superiority.

 

[Bojji]

The game literally looks like garbage with FSR 3 and Framegen on Legion Go, and somehow you think that's better than the Switch 2 handheld mode.
These are from the same uploader.

They are going in different directions here...

 

[kevboard]

Wild that even when using the 21:9 cinematic ultra-wide mode, the Switch 2 renders this amount of sharp detail without incurring in that Vaseline blur that Switch 1 games used to have. Wizardry.

huh? did you expect it to run worse while rendering fewer pixels?

 

[Baemono]

Are we seriously circle jerking about a game that runs at 1080p @ 30fps in 2025?

It is a shame when this low expectation is ok with a modern console that is suppose to run games for at least the next 5+ years. Nintendo will have their gems eventually but right now it's slim pickings on the Switch 2 while the third parties games are the weakest if you own more than one modern platform. If you value portability above all else, I can see that but cmon man. I was expecting at least modern games to run at 1080p 60fps docked but it's not happening. The way Nintendo fans are slobbering all over this game you would think it was a game of the year contender.

In My opinion the Switch Oled is still the best variation of the Switch family (switch 2 included). But really bragging about a game running at 1080p 30 fps in 2025? Cmon man!

Give this man a cookie, or anything else that contains sugar, cause he desperately need some it seems

 

[Three]

They didn't actually recommend the docked version of The Witcher on the Switch, and I'm not aware of any other portable platform to play the game at the time. So their sin in this case is to think the Witcher 3 port was impressive and detail but not "criticise" the extensive sacrifices required to get the game to run on the platform. It's still not clear to me if your position is that this is totally fine, because getting a 30 FPS version to run at all was impressive. Or if it totally was impressive, but they shouldn't be allowed to say that because you just can't express anything positive about a version that is the worst way to play the game!

My position is that the Witcher 3 on the switch was a poor way to play the game much like Star Wars is but relatively, contrary to what you said, they are being far more forgiving today of star wars compared to Witcher despite this. Star wars is running at half the framerate today, it's being compared to a weak ass Series S version. Something that didn't exist past gen when they were comparing to PS4 (the top end console then).

In any case I was talking about them being less forgiving of concrete problems like poor framerates, IQ or visual cutbacks. Now you're introducing a different idea that they're being overly forgiving of titles that fail to show impressive graphics or performance given the capability of the platform. So that if we look at how the PS5 version of Outlaws performs, we just shouldn't be impressed about how it can run on the Switch 2 at 720p 30 FPS. And I think if the PS5 version ran at 4K60, that would be a solid point. As it is though the PS5's performance mode runs at 720-1080p. Now the ironic thing about your argument is that if the S didn't exist, you would have a stronger point. You could say that they had to halve the resolution and framerate and still make visual compromises. But here the S exists and already halved the framerate and moved to performance mode settings, and despite this still suffers from performance issues which DF criticised in the original Outlaws article!

Again the PS5 and Series X version have DRS with a minimum of 720p but they run up to 1080p then scaled to 4k running at 60fps vs 30fps on switch. So switch 2 has half the framerate deficit, plus up to half the resolution deficit, plus all the significant cutbacks to visuals like textures, LoD, draw distance, RT, GI, etc.
The fact that it runs at this low framerate on switch 2, 30fps 540-720p with bugs present where you have bad pop-in, framerate hitches, and severly cut back visuals is itself them being lenient on poor framerates, IQ and visual cutbacks. Especially when they are talking about docked play specifically for reasons unknown. The existence of the Series S does nothing to make that Switch 2 experience better just because a bad performing console exists this gen too. Besides weren't you just talking about price and time of release? Series S is cheaper than Switch 2 and released 5 years ago while still providing a better experience vs docked Switch 2. In fact the Switch 2 version has the same "framerate hitches" which they complained about before which they don't mention now on Switch while providing superior visuals on Series S.

There is some room to drop resolution on the Switch 2, but the most GPU demanding parts are precisely those that we would expect to come close to 720p! So in the worst case, we have 720p on the Series S at 30 FPS, and now we're porting that to a system with half the GPU power. Do you think it's normal for a system with half the GPU power to look comparable, at a similar resolution, but with better performance? Or to use another data point, we already know that a 720p resolution is not viable on PC portables running at low settings and at higher power levels to the Switch 2 in docked mode. The video you provided proved this. So why would we expect the Switch 2 to be able to do this?

If you look at the initial preview thread with the predicted catastrophic performance, there was no sense of collective surprise. Outlaws is unplayable on the Deck, so of course it was going to be unplayable on the Switch 2, which has a similar power level (at least in portable mode), as we can see in Cyberpunk...

Those chips are old when you're talking about deck specifically use newer ones like RoG Ally X, or even series s but again even series s is a better experience than switch 2 for this game. Visually it is much better and framerate is identical. Some old PC portables are playable with those settings and greater and even have better framerate but again the reason the video was posted was because you claimed they run at 30fps with framegen and I showed that they run at 60+fps with it.

DF and other outlets report that there are momentary drops below 30 FPS, but performance does not stay below 30 FPS for extended periods. While, the XeSS Balanced clip shows the game running at 400p internally, and it's actually below 30 FPS for most of the run. It's below 30 FPS even in the non-traversal sections.

Does it on the vid? Not really. Switch 2 even freezes/stutters worse sometimes. Not sure why you're stuck on the XeSS section of that vid. Just look at the FSR ones, the upscaler made for the AMD chips that those handhelds actually use. Why do you keep concentrating on XeSS?

I already clarified that my claim is that the game requires frame gen to run at an internal resolution above 540p at 30 FPS. Your response to this is to highlight a benchmark section running at 266p! So 540p looks really bad but let's play in a mode with a quarter of the pixels!

Fair enough that makes sense but I wasn't telling you to concentrate on 266p section.

You don't seem to be understanding that the internal resolution of a "Balanced" or "Performance" mode depends on the output resolution. All of the supposedly playable benchmark runs you've highlighted run at a lower than 540p internal resolution, because the corresponding output resolution is less than 1080p. And even ignoring the lower internal resolution, the Switch 2 version is still going to look better because it's upscaling to 1080p (1440p docked). So you're highlighting graphical modes that require lower output and input resolutions and somehow holding them as "superior".

I understand that how the scaling works but I'm holding them superior on framerate here, and sometimes visually because they don't have the cutbacks to character self shadowing or lower presets that switch does.

 

[yurinka]

Obviously there are a few fixes or optimizations pretty likely possible here and there but they did an awesome port. It surprises me to see it runnint at 30fps looking relatively pretty similar to the Series S version.

 

[Buggy Loop]

I don't know why some of you persist with this nvidia hardware black magic argument. I don't see anything of miracolous in terms of perfomance in this game. I mean they drastically reduced the polycount, the cutbacks some reflections with raytracing alternate to cubemaps they rewritten a lot of the engine features just for the switch 2. Ubisoft did an exceptional work for sure but not because the nvidia hardware just thanks to good optimization. Furthermore at lower specs nvidia hardware is not to far away to AMD. It's with the higher specs where show superiority.

AMD truely fucked an entire generation of gaming by sleeping at the wheel with RT and AI and peoples not seeing it clearly with a 9W handheld doing what it's doing in that form factor is flabbergasting

It is indeed nvidia black magic because BY ALL ACCOUNTS, nobody expected RTGI for an open world current gen game with hardware RT + DLSS on a 12 SM Ampere class 9W handheld built on Samsung 8nm and be in complete other league in efficiency compared to thousand dollars handhelds on AMD

What this tells me is that I'm not buying a PC handheld until Nvidia is in. AMD is always behind, dragging everyone down. Reminds me of their joke of RT implementations when RDNA 2 released.

Mind you this is the same AMD that participated in the DXR consortium years ahead of RDNA 2, looked at Turing go ahead and they still fumbled so hard it's still catching up. They slept at the back of the class. I have no pity for those clowns.

 

[hinch7]

Yep, the only PC handhelds worth a damn when it comes to RT are going to be the RDNA5 ones in a few years time. Maybe the MSI Claw 8 AI with the Intel chip is good (as it has actually decent RT), but I have no idea how it performs in this game.

I don't have the Claw 8 but I do have a Lunarlake laptop with the same Xe² based GPU. And it's fairly performant GPU. And even handles RT pretty well. Plays GTA V enhanced with RTGI on at 40fps at 1600P with FSR 3 balanced.

Found a video as well which is a few months old and it seems it runs it quite decently. 33-40fps at 1200P XeSS performance. And Intel have been improving their drivers a lot month on month so chances are it could be running even better now. Read somewhere it runs better on AMD hardware like the HX 370 but idk.


But yeah impressive from Switch 2 and great port. Though there are clear cutbacks, its definitely well optimized with good fidelity.

 

[FireFly]

The fact that it runs at this low framerate on switch 2, 30fps 540-720p with bugs present where you have bad pop-in, framerate hitches, and severly cut back visuals is itself them being lenient on poor framerates, IQ and visual cutbacks. Especially when they are talking about docked play specifically for reasons unknown. The existence of the Series S does nothing to make that Switch 2 experience better just because a bad performing console exists this gen too. Besides weren't you just talking about price and time of release? Series S is cheaper than Switch 2 and released 5 years ago while still providing a better experience vs docked Switch 2. In fact the Switch 2 version has the same "framerate hitches" which they complained about before which they don't mention now on Switch while providing superior visuals on Series S.

The question we're addressing is not whether the Switch 2 is good value for money compared to the Series S, nor whether it should have been faster still because it released much later when newer technology was available. The question is whether you can make a case that running at 720p30 with this level of graphical quality on the Switch 2 is "impressive", given the hardware available to the developers.

According to the DF analysis, compared to the S, the overall IQ is worse on the Switch 2, but by a smaller margin than expected, and is "pretty solid overall", with similar levels of sharpness in static shots, less temporal stability but no FSR disocclusion fizzle. There is slightly more noise, but the overall quality of the lighting has both loses and wins when put up against the S version, with additional shadowing and more reflective surfaces. There are reductions in shadow quality and volumetric lighting and some reductions in asset quality that are visible on close examination. I think these cutbacks are what you would expect to see when dropping down one or two quality levels on a PC release. You would not expect them to be able to double performance on their own, and they are far from the complete decimation of asset and image quality that we saw with the Witcher release on the Switch. There are also not the extensive asset differences that we saw on Hogwarts.

From a performance perspective, DF say that the dips are momentary on the Switch 2 in situations where they are extended on the S, and the Switch 2 version does not suffer from the frame pacing issues seen on the S. Overall the game is described as offering a virtually locked 30 FPS experience.

Those chips are old when you're talking about deck specifically use newer ones like RoG Ally X, or even series s but again even series s is a better experience than switch 2 for this game. Visually it is much better and framerate is identical. Some old PC portables are playable with those settings and greater and even have better framerate but again the reason the video was posted was because you claimed they run at 30fps with framegen and I showed that they run at 60+fps with it.

The (first) video you posted shows the Ally X running at a 720p internal resolution and it's unplayable in the beginning section of the game. So no, what I am saying does not just apply to the Deck, but to the Ally and Legion Go as well. Why should we expect the Switch 2 to do what these platforms cannot?

Again, despite criticising the 540p input resolution, all of the videos you provide with supposedly superior graphics at playable settings are running at a lower than 540p input resolution and lower than 1080p output resolution. The 60 FPS sections are running in FSR Ultra Performance mode at 266p, i.e 1/4 of the pixels of 540p.

Does it on the vid? Not really. Switch 2 even freezes/stutters worse sometimes. Not sure why you're stuck on the XeSS section of that vid. Just look at the FSR ones, the upscaler made for the AMD chips that those handhelds actually use. Why do you keep concentrating on XeSS?

Not really? The footage I was talking about starts at 25 FPS in the indoor area, before recovering and is below 30 for almost the entirety of the outdoor section after Kay gets on the speeder. I was focusing on the XeSS footage because it's actually a decent upscaler and much better than FSR, and because in the video FSR is only used in the Ultra Performance mode, which equates to 266p. I was trying to present your argument in its best light. But if that's not what you want, then please explain how an upscaled 266p image is better than an upscaled 540p one, when using a considerably worse upscaler.

Fair enough that makes sense but I wasn't telling you to concentrate on 266p section.
I understand that how the scaling works but I'm holding them superior on framerate here, and sometimes visually because they don't have the cutbacks to character self shadowing or lower presets that switch does.

All of the FSR sections of the video run at 266p! If you really want an apples to apples resolution comparison, then you need to use videos with FSR Performance at a 1080p output resolution. Or at the very least FSR Quality at 800p/720p.

Remember, we started this discussion with you objecting to the Switch 2's 540p resolution, but now you seem to be favouring a mode that has a quarter of the pixels of this resolution. Watching the video it mostly looks like a pixel soup and I can only imagine the commentary if the Switch 2 version had shipped with a 266p mode.

Edit: Ok, there are actually FSR balanced and performance benchmarks in the video with FG on that run at 40 - 50 FPS during traversal. So that's 533p/400p and an expected framerate below 30 FPS with FG off during these sections.

 

[kevboard]

I don't have the Claw 8 but I do have a Lunarlake laptop with the same Xe² based GPU. And it's fairly performant GPU. And even handles RT pretty well. Plays GTA V enhanced with RTGI on at 40fps at 1600P with XeSS balanced.

Found a video as well which is a few months old and it seems it runs it quite decently. 33-40fps at 1200P XeSS performance. And Intel have been improving their drivers a lot month on month so chances are it could be running even better now. Read somewhere it runs better on AMD hardware like the HX 370 but idk.


But yeah impressive from Switch 2 and great port. Though there are clear cutbacks, its definitely well optimized with good fidelity.

due to their tiny market share, people often forget how good the RT cores of Intel's GPUs are.

 

[Gamer79]

You posted all those words to bitch about something you're incorrect about to begin with.

It's reconstructed 1440p 30fps with hardware ray tracing on a 9-20w handheld APU, yes that's incredibly impressive, please shut the fuck up with this drivel.

Horseshit. It's a piss poor performance for a modern console. 30fps is pathetic in modern times. Enjoy your overpriced toy.

Nintendo is really screwing you from behind and people like you take it with a smile . I won't waste my money on this over priced and underwhelming console with a kcd screen. Now I will shut the fuck up. Enjoy your Nintendo D.

 

[Three]

, and because in the video FSR is only used in the Ultra Performance mode, which equates to 266p. I was trying to present your argument in its best light. But if that's not what you want, then please explain how an upscaled 266p image is better than an upscaled 540p one, when using a considerably worse upscaler.

I mean that is simply bullshit because the beginning of the video is FSR balanced.

All of the FSR sections of the video run at 266p! If you really want an apples to apples resolution comparison, then you need to use videos with FSR Performance at a 1080p output resolution. Or at the very least FSR Quality at 800p/720p.

Again simply wrong.

The question we're addressing is not whether the Switch 2 is good value for money compared to the Series S, nor whether it should have been faster still because it released much later when newer technology was available. The question is whether you can make a case that running at 720p30 with this level of graphical quality on the Switch 2 is "impressive", given the hardware available to the developers.

According to the DF analysis, compared to the S, the overall IQ is worse on the Switch 2, but by a smaller margin than expected, and is "pretty solid overall", with similar levels of sharpness in static shots, less temporal stability but no FSR disocclusion fizzle. There is slightly more noise, but the overall quality of the lighting has both loses and wins when put up against the S version, with additional shadowing and more reflective surfaces. There are reductions in shadow quality and volumetric lighting and some reductions in asset quality that are visible on close examination. I think these cutbacks are what you would expect to see when dropping down one or two quality levels on a PC release. You would not expect them to be able to double performance on their own, and they are far from the complete decimation of asset and image quality that we saw with the Witcher release on the Switch. There are also not the extensive asset differences that we saw on Hogwarts.

From a performance perspective, DF say that the dips are momentary on the Switch 2 in situations where they are extended on the S, and the Switch 2 version does not suffer from the frame pacing issues seen on the S. Overall the game is described as offering a virtually locked 30 FPS experience.


The (first) video you posted shows the Ally X running at a 720p internal resolution and it's unplayable in the beginning section of the game. So no, what I am saying does not just apply to the Deck, but to the Ally and Legion Go as well. Why should we expect the Switch 2 to do what these platforms cannot?

You were the one who brought up the words "similarly priced" when using the steamdeck so if value of the Series S has nothing to do with it why did you bring it up? And the topic isn't about how "impressive" this is it's about how good or bad the experience is for the user. Running doom on a calculator is also "impressive" but the experience is shite to actually play the game as a commercial product.

 

[tkscz]

Horseshit. It's a piss poor performance for a modern console. 30fps is pathetic in modern times. Enjoy your overpriced toy.

Nintendo is really screwing you from behind and people like you take it with a smile . I won't waste my money on this over priced and underwhelming console with a kcd screen. Now I will shut the fuck up. Enjoy your Nintendo D.

This is the type of attitude I can't stand, frame rate stability is what's most important. Doesn't matter what year it is, that argument is always dumb, especially with UE5 out here causing stability issues on consoles.

A stable 30fps is better than an unstable 60fps.

 

[Kataploom]

To be fair the Steam Deck is running the PC version and the Switch 2 version has reduced assets and stuff on screen so no a 1:1 comparison...

I don't think why this is a factor, the only thing that matters is how well can you play it, we can put whatever excuses for PC as well as it's running Windows stuff or whatever, but doesn't matter in the end as long as you can or can't play it

 

[Deerock71]

Horseshit. It's a piss poor performance for a modern console. 30fps is pathetic in modern times. Enjoy your overpriced toy.

Nintendo is really screwing you from behind and people like you take it with a smile . I won't waste my money on this over priced and underwhelming console with a kcd screen. Now I will shut the fuck up. Enjoy your Nintendo D.

Nintendo's living rent-free in the minds of the Sony ponies. I'd say Microsoft, but they're full-blown 3rd party at this point. Enjoy your PS6 hybrid and/or multiple PS6 iterations; Sony has to, yet again, copy Nintendo.

 

[OverHeat]

This thread is full of insecurities hahahahah peasant!